
v'iv 



% 






£ 407 
'1115 
Copy 1 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. R. M. McLANE, OF MARYLAm 



ON 



THE WAR WITH MEXICO. 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 19, 1848. 






l^i 



'9> 









WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE 

1848. 



SPEECH. 



In Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
Union, on the Resolutions referring the Presi- 
dent's Message to the various Standing Com- 
mittees, 

Mr. McLANE said: 

He somewhat regretted that it was his fortune to 
follow in debate the gentleman from New Hamp- 
shire, [Mr. Tuck,] whose allusions to the subject of 
slavery were offensive to the pride and refinement 
of every gentleman, he hoped, from every State of 
our Federal Union, who respected and venerated 
our Federal Constitution. If, in the course of his 
remarks, he should have occasion to refer to the 
same subject, he should do so with great respect 
for the local institutions of every State in the 
Union, be it free or slave, however much he might, 
as the representative of a slave State, feel wounded 
at the offensive allusions so freely offered in thi.s 
House by gentlemen who regarded themselves as 
men of a single idea. 

Mr. McL. continued, and said, that but for the 
extraordinary declaration made by this House, at 
the motion of an honorable gentleman from Mas- 
sachusetts, [Mr. AsHMCN,] denouncing this war 
as "unconstitutional,"&c.,&c.,I should notthink 
it within my range to engage the attention of the 
committee with the origin of the Mexican war. 
Whatever opinion I might have entertained, I 
could not have reconciled myself to a voluntary 
expression of sentiment, the record of which on 
the Journal of this House necessarily discredited 
our own Government, and falsified the records of 
both branches of the National Legislature. Sir, had 
we thought it wise to abandon the war, and with- 
draw our armies to the east of the Rio Grande, 
and adhere for the future to a defensive war with 
Mexico, it would be, in my judgment, unneces- 
sary, if not derogatory, to raise an issue of veraci- 
ty with a former Congress — appealing to partisan 
zeal at home or abroad to determine whether it-e or 
cur predecessors have voted " a falsehood." But to 
make such a declaration after we have refused to 
withdraw our armies, exposes to insult and shame 
the brave men we have pushed forward into Mex- 
ico — aiding^ and comforting , and encouraging their 
enemies, v/hile we chill and demoralize public sen- 
timent at home, and render it impossible to raise 
succor and reinforcement for those whom we re- 
fuse to recall, on the same day and hour that we 
discredit and dishonor their service. 



I regret that a majority of this House have taken 
a very different view of our mutual obligations; 
and, in my judgment, insensible to the honor of the 
Government and the pride of our illustrious soldiers, 
they would attach their falsification of the nation- 
al record to a vote of thanks, by which it was 
proposed that the Congress of the United States 
should convey to General Taylor some light ex- 
pression of the respect and admiration felt for him 
by his fellow-citizens. This association of such 
a declaration with the name of General Taylor, 
will appear still more unfortunate when some ref- 
erence IS had to the particular aicts of the President, 
which constituted the illegality or unconstitutional- 
ity of the war. There are those in opposition, sir, 
who consider the annexation of Texas as the^rsf 
and great violation of law that caused the war, and 
the military and civil conduct of the President 
as the immediate occasion of the war ; others, who 
justify the act of annexation as legal and constitu- 
tional, without regard to its wisdom or expediency, 
are obliged to rest the illegalitij and unconstitutioii- 
alitxj of the war upon the orders of the President, 
which they allege were issued without the concur- 
rence of Congress, and immediately caused the 
war. It would be difficult, sir, to determine which 
of these propositions involves the most inconsist- 
ency, supposing either to be the ground of com- 
plaint against the Government of the United States. 
If the annexation of Texas was the illegal and 
unjustifiable casus belli, ihcxi the occupation of any 
part of Texas, east or west of the Nueces, was 
necessarily an immediate act of ofience on the part 
of the American Executive. But it was also neces- 
sarily the result of that obligation to execute the 
law of annexation imposed by the Constitution on 
the President. 

On the other hand, if the act of annexation was 
legal and constitutional, but regarded by Mexico as 
an act of war, then no movement of the Execu- 
tive connected with the defence of the new terri- 
tory, even without the concurrence of Congress, 
can be treated as the cause of the war. Sir, the 
course of the Opposition on this point renders it 
necessary to look back a little at the history of this 
"act of annexation." I shall not, however, weary 
the committee with more on this point than a re- 
view of facts, which confute the declaration that 
the President, by his own illegal act in occupying 
the territory west of the Nueces, without the con- 
currence of Congress, caused the war. It will not 



be denied, sir, that the act of anneTcation was a 
formal act of the law-making; power of our Gov- 
ernment. The army of the United Stales was not 
moved beyond tiic Sabine until a convention of the 
people of Texas had accepted the terms of annex- 
ation offered by Conjjrcss. This was in the sum- 
mer of 1845, when the Government of the United 
States assigned General Taylor to the command of 
the army of observation, destined to defend and 
protect the soil of Texas, informing him that his 
ultimate destination would be the western frontier 
of Texas, on or near the Rio Grande. (See Mr. 
Bancroft's despatch in June or July, 1845.) In 
December, 1845, Congress was informed that Gen- 
eral Taylor had been assigned to the defence of the 
country west of the Rio Grande. In the same 
month, and after receiving this information. Con- 
gress, by a formal act, consummated annexation, 
ond extended American jurisdiction over the whole 
of Texas, without reserve or limitation. A refer- 
ence to this act of admission of the State of Texas 
(29th December, 1845) will show that it was the 
State of Texas that was admitted, wiiU a consti- 
tution alieady formed, affirming the declaratory 
statutes which defined the boundary west to the 
Rio Grande; and with such boundary she was ad- 
mitted a Stale into the Union. This act of Con- 
gress settles the question at issue, and establishes 
the concuirence of Congress with the President in 
taking possession and sovereignly over the country 
west to the Rio Grande; for on the same day an- 
other act was passed, extending, in general terms, 
the laws of the United States within the State of 
Texas. 

Mr. CRISFIELD here interposed, to say that 
his colleague was wrong in point of fact. 

Mr. McLANE said, that if he was wrong in 
the statement he had made, the burden and all the 
injury would rest upon him. 

'Mr. BOYD and Mr. CRISFIELD here made 
8ome additional remarks, which were not audible 
to the reporter, being addressed to Mr. McLane, 
near whom both gentlemen were seated. 

Mr. McLANE replied, that it was to him a mat- 
ter of indifference, whether the Texan constitu- 
tion of 1836 did or did not define her boundary. 

Mr. K..A.UFMAJM, of Texas, being appealed to 
by several gentlemen around him, (interposing,) 
said: The constitution of the Republic of Texas 
did not define the western boundary of that State. 
It was defined, however, by a la^o of the first Con- 
gress of the Republic of Texas, passed in Decem- 
ber, 1836. The constitution of the Slate of Texas 
declares all laws of the Republic of Texas in force 
not repugnant to the United States Constitution, 
or the annexation resolutions. 

Mr. BOTTS asked the gentleman from Texas 
whether ^he boundary of Texas, as described by 
tlie act of her Congress of 1836, included Santa Fe? 
Mr. KAUFMAN replied that it did; that it in- 
cluded all the territory east of the Rio Grande, from 
its mouth to its source; and that the Congress of 
the United States which passed the annexation 
.resolutions, approved March 1, 1845, understood 
that Texas included Santa Fe ; for it provided that 
States formed out of Ike territory of Texas north of 
36^ degrees should be free Stales; while Santa Fe 
is south of 36| degrees north latitude. Mr. K. fur- 
ther said, that the Republic of Texas, previous to 
annexation, had established post routes from Bexar 
to Laredo, on the east bank of the Rio Grande, 



and from Corpus Christi to Point Isabel, and that 
evenj portion of territory east oftheRio Grande, from 
its mouth to its source, and north to the 42d degree of 
north latitude, vas included by different acts nf the 
Congress of the Republic (if Texas, previous to annex- 
ation, willunlhe limits of some organized or establish- 
ed county of said Republic ! 

Mr. McLANE continued. Subsequently (he 
.said) Congress organized the revenue districts in 
Texas, in such wise that one district was bounded 
on the west by the J^ueces, another on the east by 
the Nueces, and the west by the Rio Grande; and 
the Senate confirmed the nomination of revenue 
officers assigned to the districts so located. Sir, 
I would remark that I am not now engaged with 
an examination of the boundary question between 
Texas and Mexico; I am considering thecalunmy 
thrown upon this Government by the declaration 
that the occupation of the country between the 
Nueces and the Rio Grande was the illegal and 
unconstitutional act of the President, without the 
concurrence of Congress. Sir, I think it just to 
get rid of this issue, before I engage with any ex- 
amination of the real origin of the war; for I con- 
sider the declaration, so often repeated by the 
Opposition, that the occupation of the country 
between the Nueces and the Rio Grande was the 
act of the President, without the concurrence of 
Congress, to be in itself a calumny. 

I present, therefore, in this connection, to the at- 
tention of the committee, that in June, 1845, Gen- 
eral Taylor had indicated to him the extent of 
country to the Rio Grande, claimed as Texas, un- 
der the act of annexation, receiving at the same 
time his orders to defend and protect that territory; 
while Congre.«^s, in December, 1845, on their first 
meeting were informed fully by the President of 
his action in Texas — to which they took no excep- 
tion; but, on the contrary, legislated, without re- 
straint and without limit, for all the territory 
claimed as Texas; and particularly committed it- 
self to this territory west of the Nueces, by further 
and particular legislation in the establishment of a 
custom-house and revenue di.-5trict west of that 
river. Upon this state of facts, I feel constrained 
to regard as a calumny the assertion that the terri- 
tory west of the Nueces was occupied by the ille- 
gal and unconstitutional order of the President of 
the United States loithout the concurrence of Con- 
gress. 

Sir, I have seen it suggested from the Opposition 
that the war, though just and honorable as the re- 
sult of annexation as between Mexico and the 
United States, yet, as between the different branches 
of this Government, there exists a responsibility 
with the Executive, peculiar and painful, created 
by the rash act of the President in ordering the 
troops to the Rio Grande, provoking the state of 
active hostilities. 

Such a conclusion could only result, sir, from 
the struggle of a generous spirit, under the impulse 
of patriotism, called to an unwilling association 
with the Opposition. Such an assault on the Presi- 
dent, like the broad declaration affirmed by this 
House, and already referred to, must be refuted 
by a simple review of the history of annexation; 
and coming from ihe Opposition, under all the ex- 
isting circumstances, it is even more unwarrant- 
alile than the abstract denunciation of the illegality 
and unconstitutionality of such an order. In re- 
pelling this assault upon the wisdom and capacity 



of the President in one particular act of adminis- 
tration, it must be observed, that even in view of 
the act of territorial occupation west of the Nueces, 
this advance to the Rio Grande was not made for 
months after our armies were posted west of the 
Nueces, and for months after Congress had actu- 
ally extended American laws and American life 
into that territory; nor until months after General 
Taylor, who was intrusted with the defence and 
protection of Texas, had repeatedly urged and ad- 
vised ihe movement, upon high considerations of 
military and political propriety; nor until months 
after the organization of the Mexican armies on 
the banks of the Rio Grande river, under peremp- 
tory orders to cross that river, and seek our peo- 
Ele at Corpus Christi, or wherever else they might 
e found. This movement, made with caution, 
with care, in a purely defensive spirit, subordinate 
and secondary to the occupation of the country 
west of the Nueces, which was made six months 
before the advance to the Rio Grande was ordered; 
and this movement, which was withheld for 
months, at the expi-ess command of the President, 
that every possible effort to settle differences by 
negotiation might be exhausted, is seized upon by 
one branch of the Opposition as an illegal and un- 
constitutional act, by another as an unwise one, 
and by both, as the cause of the war, proximate 
or remote. 

Sir, one other ground of reproach is relied on by 
the Opposition, which is to attach the responsibil- 
ity of this war to the President. He is denounced, 
sir, for electing the alternative joint resolution for 
the admission of the State of Texas into the Union, 
rather than the resolutions which proposed nego- 
tiation. Sir, not to remark that tlie President's 
predecessor had already made the election, let me 
only suggest that Congress authorized the election; 
and that it savors somewhat of presumption, to 
argue now, in the dark, that a different election 
would have avoided wac For one, sir, I believe 
the alternative election of negotiation would have 
lost Texas altogether. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the war — 

1st. In its origin, just, honorable, and necessary, 
(1 mean unavoidable.) 

2d. I think it is being prosecuted with the avow- 
ed object of conquering a peace, which would se- 
cure indemnity for the past and security for the 
future. 

3d. I think indemnity and security may consist 
in pecuniary, territorial, or commercial conditions, 
altogether or severally. 

4th. I think the war-power under our Federal 
Constitution omnipotent under the recognized laws 
of nations, as established on principles of humari- 
ity and civilization. 

5th. I would inquire how shall this war-power 
be exercised in the further prosecution of the ex- 
isting war with Mexico. 

What, sir, are the facts which develop the ori- 
gin and history of this war? In 183G, the Pccpub- 
fic of Texas accomplished a revolution with the 
sioord. I do not speak of the country formerly 
known as Louisiana, and alleged to have been 
bounded by tlie Rio Grande; I do not speak of 
the Mexican department of Texas, alleged to have 
been bounded by tlie J^ueces; !)nt, sir, I speak 
of the revolutionized Republic of Texas — consist- 
ing of the people of the department of Texas, 
and portions of the people of Tamaulipas and 



Coahuila — who, after driving the Mexican ar- 
mies beyond the Rio Grande, and at once or- 
ganizing a Government, declared that river to be 
their western boundary; and, from that time to 
the present, maintained complete and undisturbed 
possession of the soil west to the Rio Grande; so 
far as concerned their intercourse with the United 
Slates and the nations of- the earth who had re- 
cognizfed their national independence — England, 
France, and other great Powers inclusive. Within 
these limits of boundary, they exercised in their 
intercourse 'with these nations all the rights of 
sovereignty; and even in their relations with Mex- 
ico, actually making peace on the recognition of 
such boundaries, stipulating for the withdrawal 
of the Mexican armies to the west of the Rio 
Grande, and the release of the Mexican command- 
er-in-chief, and further maintaining such boundary 
against all subsequent efforts of Mexico to obtain 
a permanent footing on that soil from which her 
armies had been driven in the war of the revolu- 
tion; while the people who continued to inhabit 
such territory were recognized as citizens of Tex- 
as, tendering^lheir allegiance, and being represent- 
ed in the Congress of Texas, and, I believe, in 
the very Convention that accepted our terms of 
admission. These acts of sovereignty have been 
often referred to in this House. As one act of 
such sovereignty, Texas became a State of our 
Federal Union, bringing with her the old quarrel 
with Mexico, which, at the time of annexation, was 
the Mexican claim to all of Texas; and this quar- 
rel, to the extent of war with Mexico, or other 
Powers interfering with the "act of annexation," 
I cheerfully assume as the price of Texas. 

Sir, observe the conduct of the two Governments 
in their intercourse, now that the act of annexation 
has transferred this intercourse to the Federal Ad- 
ministration ; see the insolence of Mexico and the 
forbearance of the United States; see the declara- 
tion of Almonte, withdrawing from our country 
on the passage of the act of annexation ; see every 
subsequent stage of the controversy between Mex- 
ico and the United States, and every despatch of 
every minister, in every change of a changing 
Government. The offence was the act of annex- 
ation. That act was the act of Congress, and the 
occupation of any part of Texas was an offence in 
the eyes of Mexico ; but the occupation of any and 
every part was the dnlij of the President, and had 
necessarily the concurrence of Congress, in virtue 
alone of the original act of annexation, which was 
a just, a wise, a constitutional act, and in advance 
sanetioned by the will of the peop.a of the United 
States, and ratified by the people of a free and 
sovereign republic, holding dominion from the 
Sabine "west to the Rio Grande. Seethe subse- 
'quent and subordinate ground of complaint, aris- 
ing out of the disputed boundary question — sup- 
posing the major, offence of annexation reconciled; 
and, in this connection, observe the cautious, for- 
bearing, conciliating course of the American Exec- 
utive, holding the American forces on the extreme 
eastern border of the disputed territory until every 
effort for a peaceful adjustment of differences seem- 
ed hopeless ; and further observe the cautious, de- 
fensive policy adopted in occupying and defending 
the soil uf this new State. 

On the other hand, sir, see the war issue on 
which Paredes overthrew the Government of Her- 
rera, confessedly because the annexation of Texas 



6 



was cause of war. Arid here, sir, in this Paredcs 
revoliUion, may be seen really the occasion nf hos- 
tililirs, if gentlemen wish to refine upon the orio;in 
of the Mexip.an war; for, sir, this revnlunon 
once accomplished, see the oflcnsive, hostile, ag- 
gressive s[)irit with which the Mexican army 
was ordered to talce/orcib/e possession not only of 
that territory which, in some collatpral issues of 
the negotiation, had been styled dlspulril, but also 
of the territory of Texas all the way to the Sabine. 
Surrenderirig then, sir, all the advantage which re- 
sults from the acknowledged sovereignly of Texas 
to the Rio Grande, and the transfer of that sover- 
eignty to tlie Federal Government, we can aflbrd 
to stand upon the issue oCopposilion, now very nat- 
urally adopted by our beateti and desperate enemy, 
and acknowledge, for the moment, that Texas, to 
the Nueces, was legally and rightfully occupied by 
our troops, and that all beyond, to the Rio Grande, 
was disjmted territory., For, sir, the American 
Government took defensive possession, and the 
Mexican Government offensive possession of this 
territory, contemporaneously — hostilities occur- 
ring at a moment when the American general was 
ordered to act defensively, and the Mexican to in- 
vade and act ofi'ensively. 

What can be more conclusive to establish the 
necessity, the justice, and the obligation of honor, 
imposed upon our Government to recognize and 
engage in the prosecution of such a war? What 
more conclusive to establish the wisdom and for- 
bearance of the Executive? And yet the Congress 
that recognized such a war are branded as voting 
a "falsehood," and the Executive arm is paralyzed 
by the denunciation of a majority of this House — 
a denunciation pov.-erless but for insult, since we 
hear nothing of impeachment, the only legitimate 
fruit of such a denunciation. 

Satisfied, then, sir, that the war is just, honor- 
able, and necessary, I desire, in the second place, 
to ascertain if it is prosecuted with an honorable 
and intelligent purpose. The war message of 
May, ]846, and every subsequent annual message 
and special message, have all declared that the war 
is prosecuted with the sole object of conquering a 
satisfactory peace ; and these Executive declara- 
tions have been understood to involve the princi- 
ple of demanding indemnity, both for the expenses 
of the war, and the past injuries and wrongs 
inflicted by Mexico upon citizens of the United 
States. In view, then, of these two positions, and 
the repeated rejection of our peaceful overtures, I 
see no course left to this Goverimient, but the con- 
tinued prosecution of the war, until the power that 
governs Mexico is subdued; we then dictate our 
own terms, and accomplish our avowed purpose 
of conquering a peace. I thus distinguish, sir, be- 
tween the conquest of peace and the subjugation* 
of the poicer that governs a country, and the subju- 
gation or annihilation of the country itself, with all 
its institutions and municipal existence. 

Here, sir, arises an interesting inquiry. Such 
a subjugation of the power that govern.^ Mexico 
once accomplished, what indcmnily shall be de- 
manded? This inquiry must be resolved before 
we can wisely apply our war-making power in the 
further prosecution of the war; for, m the enun- 
ciation of my third pro})osition, 1 have stated, in 
terms somewhat comprehensive, the scope of in- 
ternational indemnity. I feel constrained, sir, to 
pass over, without consideration, the idea of a 



simple pecnniary indemnity, or a pecuniary guar- 
antee of security for the future in our relations 
with Mexico. I distrust, utterly, all expectation 
of ever obtaining such. So, sir, in regard to mere 
abstract territorial acquisition. 1 cannot believe 
that the mere acquisition of a portion of the Mex- 
ican territory, embracing even the valley of the 
Rio Grande, to the whole extent of territory com- 
prised east of the Sicrrn J*/a(ire, and including New 
Mexico and California — which, though .somewhat 
beyond the recommendation of the President, has 
beensHggcs/e(<by very eminent military authority — 
would in itself constitute a .satisfactory indemnity 
for the war alone; much less would such an acqui- 
sition, in my judgment, give us security for the 
future. Such an acquisition of territory, com- 
bined with certain fixed commercial relations, and 
the occupation of such points on the seacoast and 
in the interior as would ensure their faithful exer- 
cise and enjoyment, might, perhaps, satisfy the 
just demands and expectations of a wise American 
policy. Nothing short of such a result, sir, would 
constitute a satisfactory peace, in my judgment. 
To accomplish this result, the existing Govern- 
ment of Mexico must be absolutely sulijugated. 
When this crisis is reached, American statesmen, 
who may be intrusted with the administration of 
Government, in my opinion, will take a yet more 
coiTiprehensive view of this question oC indenuiity; 
and, rejecting altogether the idea of territorial ac- 
quisition, they would, perhaps, guarantee to the 
whole people of Mexico republican government, 
civil and religious liberty, equal rights and equal 
laws, in tlieir relation of indeyiendent several 
States, or in any independent confederate relation 
they may desire to assume. None of the evils in- 
cident, or believed to be incident, to the denation- 
alization of Mexico, could then occur; but, like 
the other inhabitants of the North American con- 
tinent, who have been subjugated by the United 
States, they will enjoy thfit degree of civilization' 
and independence for which they may be fitted, 
and the free and glorious civilization of our people 
will press onward until it covers the American 
continent. The coinmercial relations thus secured 
with seven or eight millions of people, from whom, 
though adjacent in territory, we have been almost 
excluded by the prejudices of an eighth or tenth 
of the Mexican nation, in alliance with the arts 
and intrigues of European traders and mission- 
aries, would constitute an ample, a glorious indem- 
nily; while the liberated millions of Mexico would 
bless the sword of the conqueror, and spurn the 
rude despotism of the privileged classes, who now 
sport with and oppress them. To this end, sir, 
I would myself be willing at this time to prose- 
cute the war. The power to declare war, and 
make rules for the government of our armies, and 
our captures on land and sea, is annjile to fill the 
measure of glory and freedom which I think this 
war will yet secure to the Mexican people. I 
would desire at once, sir, to extend our revenue 
laws over Mexico, and push the war vigorously 
to the occupation and subjugation of every Mexi- 
can State. When these brilliant results should be 
accomplished — and the task is more simple than we 
generally concede — I, for one, shall be content to 
leave with our existing Government the adjust- 
ment of a satisfactory peace — assured, as I am, 
that no peace will ever be deemed satisfactory and 
honorable that does not stijuiiate for " indemnity 



and security," and security gua.,....;^d by treaty 
stipulations — not alone in view of our immediate 
relation to Mexico, but in view of all the relations 
which Mexico and the United States hold to Euro- 
pean nations. Sir, in my own humble sphere of in- 
tercourse, I havegathered such intelligence in regard 
to the relations of Paredes and the monarchical 
party in Mexico with certain powers in Europe, 
that I cannot consent to confine my view simply 
to the relations of the United States with Mexico, 
when I consider the conditions indispensable to 
the idea of future security in the pursuit of our 
own American policy. AH who have observed 
the intimate relations existing between Paredes 
and Queen Christina, and the present political 
connection existing between the latter and the 
French and Spanish Governments, will be at no 
loss to appreciate the importance of these cons d- 
erations. 

I do not advocate, sir, any mission of philan- 
thropy; I do not justify any spirit of propagand- 
ism, on the part of the American Government. 
But I look to the actual condition of Mexico, 
without inquiring whether the present war was 
caused by iVIexico or the United States, or whether 
it has produced the present state of affairs — 
which, in my judgment, demands from this Gov- 
ernment firmness and resolution, in securing steady 
regulations and treaty stipulations beyond the 
power of English or French intrigues to disturb, 
whether those intrigues are confined to efforts 
which would exclude us from commercial inter- 
course with Mexico, or have the more enlarged 
purpose of establisiiing, in the place of the anar- 
chical Government now existing, a monarchy under 
the protection of European Powers. 

But, sir, I do not presume to press these views 
at this time. I am quite content to' support the 
policy of the Administration, as presented in the 
President's message, and take at once the territoral 
indemnity recommended by him; though I would 
venture to hope his recommendation might be ex- 
tended to include the valley of the Rio Grande 
south to Tampico, as well as New Mexico and 
California. Such an acquisition of territory, com- 
bined with the measures recommended by the 
President, or the extension of a judicious revenue 
system over Mexico, and a continued prosecution 
of the war, would constitute, in my judgment, a 
policy which will yet receive the sanction of the 
American people. 

Sir, in viewing the more enlarged and compre- 
hensive policy indicated in the remarks I have just 
submitted, I would observe that such a policy, 
though it certainly embraces the whokofMtxico in 
its influence, and is intended to give moral and 
physical life to the people and institutions of that 
portion of the American continent, must not be 
confounded with the simple proposition of the de- 
nationalization of Mexico and the annexation of 
that country and people as an integral and sover- 
eign portion of our own Confederacy. Nine-tenths 
of the people of Mexico are hardly less aboriginal, 
and certainly not so well cultivated and advanced, 
as the Chodaxv, or even the Cherokee Indians, who, 
as a people, though conquered, are still left to the 
enjoymenlof civil and religious freedom; instituting 
their own fundamental laws, and enacting their own 
municipal regulations, under the most improved 
and independent system of republican government 
within the territory and jurisdiction of the United 



States, yet not constituting an integral and sover- 
eign portion of the Confederacy itself. Neverthe- 
less, sir, their laws, their public schools, their civil 
and religious cultivation, present types of a civil- 
ization in few respects inferior to our own. 

The principal and main objection, sir, that I have 
heard advanced cigainst the partial acquisition of 
Mexican territory, will doubtless be applied to the 
policy here indicated, and lies in the supposed ex- 
tension oC slavery among a people and over territory 
from which it is now excluded by municipal law. 
This objection, sir, 1 regard as of little weight — 
not because I am in anywise insensible to the out- 
rage which such a forced extension of such an in- 
stitution over an unwilling people would constitute. 
I regard this objection, sir, of little weight, because 
I do not believe the act of acquisition, of itself, 
would necessarily extend this institution over the 
territory so acquired. Still less do I believe that 
the subjugaiion of all Mexico, and the subsequent 
government of that country by the inhabitants 
thereof, under free and republican institutions, 
would ever result in the extension of slavery be- 
yond the limits where it now exists. Further, 
sir, I do not believe that any act of the Federal 
Government of the United States can either create 
or abolish slavery anywhere, within or without our 
present limits. The powers of our Federal Gov- 
ernment over the institutions of slavery are limited, 
1st, to their enumeration, in fixing the ratio of con- 
gressional representation; 2d, to their arrest and 
restoration when fugitives from labor; and 3d, to 
prohibit their importation or their immigration 
from abroad subsequent to the year 1808. Terri- 
tory acquired by the United States with slavery 
existing therein as a domestic municipal institution, 
as Florida and Louisiana, would remain slave terri- 
tory without regard and without the sanction of 
treaty stipulations to make it so, or to guaranty 
its existence. 

On the other hand, territory acquired without 
the existence therein of this municipal institution, 
would remain /cee, so far as any power of Con- 
gress to create it there, or to declare that it should 
exist there, is concerned. The people who may 
have abolished it therein, or who may have failed 
to create it there, are alone possessed of sover- 
eignty over it — being a purely domestic, local, and 
peculiar institution, recognized by the Federal Con- 
stitution as such within the limits of such sov- 
ereignty as may have established it — an institution 
recognized as existing in virtue of a sovereivnty 
apart from, and independent of, the Federal Con- 
stitution, though not inconsistent with it. Hf-nce it 
is, sir, I believe territory acquired by the United 
States, either by purchase or conquest, and inhabited 
by people who become citizens of the Ui?ited States, 
will maintain and establish such municipal institu- 
tions as are most acceptable to their own will and 
wish, if consistent with the Constitution and laws 
of the United States and the reserved rio"hts of th^ 
States. Entertaining these views on the subie<-c 
of slavery, I may be permitted to say that I feel, 
as the representative of a southern State, wounded 
and offended at the style of langui.o-e so often in- 
dulged in by gentlemen on this fl-)or, who treat 
this question as men of a single id(:a, (jenouncing 
the institution and those who live in it u;;..'. ; , and 
though myself born north of Maso n.^:' Oixon's 
line, I still lived sufiiciently in th i^.j-.^t of the 
black and slave race to understand , , , they were 



8 



capable of far more enlightened and Christian 
principles of aclioh, and love to tlieir nci^libors 
and fellow-men, than 1 have ever witnessed in the 
conduct of any branch of the Abolition party, here 
or elsewhere. And, in conclusion, I would say, 
that I hold the opinion that Congress is under the 



011 446 843 5f 

obligation to vote promptly men and moneyfor the 
vigorous prosecution of a war that will conquer a 
glorious and satisfactory peace, reducing Mexico 
to complete subjection, leaving us to dictate tcnns, 
which 1" would have illustrate our humanity, our 
wisdom, and our justice. 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



01 1 446 843 5 # 



HOLUNGER 
pH8.5 



